Does your side usually win in forum threads?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I've had a debate like this with Kucidude a few days ago, and he actually argued that a proposition that violates one or more axioms in its system was not contradictory.

I said that the system was defined by the axioms, and therefore any proposition that violated the axioms wasn't part of the system.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, I often laugh at my monitor; When I'm syaing ROFL, or use several laughing smileys, you can trust I just loudly laughed in front of my computer

I would like that a smiley be specially devoted to this important information because I feel the need to transmit that feeling. Of course I understand that can be used even if you silently laugh, which is different IMHO.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I said that the system was defined by the axioms, and therefore any proposition that violated the axioms wasn't part of the system.

1) This isn't what you said
2) Even if it was, that's still inconsistent

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Of course I understand that can be used even if you silently laugh, which is different IMHO.

Only old farts like you with no taste for life can laugh silently.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I would like that a smiley be specially devoted to this important information

Here you are:

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
1) This isn't what you said

Yes it is. That and the fact that people may claim to hold certain axioms, but actually hold different ones, so their actions would not be inconsistent with their actual axioms.

2) Even if it was, that's still inconsistent

No it's not.

A proposition may be derived from a system of axioms incorrectly, and therefore be inconsistent with that system, but the system itself is not made internally inconsistent by people deriving false conclusions from it using flawed logic.

[David Floyd]

OB and Kuci are exhibiting Agathon's basic structure of a 'Poly debate as we speak. Oh the irony

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OB and Kuci are exhibiting Agathon's basic structure of a 'Poly debate as we speak. Oh the irony

This is how we should put it:

[Agathon]

Only if you assume all the websites are similarly authoritative, which isn't the case.

That's not quite what I meant. I should have been clearer.

Whether or not they are authoritative or not is separate from the question of whether people will think that they are. As always happens here, people question the authority of any site that doesn't agree with them.

Winning an argument is getting the other side to admit they were mistaken. That never happens.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Winning an argument is getting the other side to admit they were mistaken. That never happens.

It does (rarely) with me

I sometimes do say "I stand corrected "

[David Floyd]

That's not necessarily true - I've admitted to being wrong, or that the other side has a valid point, a few times.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Winning an argument is getting the other side to admit they were mistaken. That never happens.

It is quite remarkable, isn't it?

Even when somebody makes a ridiculous assertion that a company is selling its products at a loss because their profit decreased (but is still profitable ).

Instead of admit defeat, said people tend to ignore it.

Me, I'll admit being wrong (I just did earlier today when arguing with Ben about abortion), or fight to the death.

[ixnay]

Nobody ever argues with me so I assume I'm always right.

[Agathon]

Even when somebody makes a ridiculous assertion that a company is selling its products at a loss because their profit decreased (but is still profitable ).

I can't remember saying that.

Me, I'll admit being wrong (I just did earlier today when arguing with Ben about abortion), or fight to the death

It's called psychopathy.

[Whaleboy]

If only more debates were conceptual. The only problem with that is that if you start debating that way, people try to use empirical claims to refute it.

Indeed

The problem here is that there are very few proper debators. Those that "win" debates here, as they are viewed at least, are those with the popular views, or those with the ability to type lots of repeatitious crap based upon axioms at best and religious assumptions at worse (not looking at anyone in particular BK ) in order to smother the opposition by reams of bloat.

A true debator is one who can deconstruct another's view, point out the fallacies or defeat it using the superiority of his own position, given the same assumptions, and most people here never get beyond that point. Half of the time people can't even agree on the most basic of definitions... everything has to be on everyones own terms... rarely can anyone play devils advocate and so the debate can be red-herringed by some onto pedantic issues that favour them.

Lesser minds